Jump to content

FAO: McFluff - Scoreboard


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 87
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

In the hope that people can debate the actual subject matter and not the playground stuff, I'm going to reopen it (partly because I'd started typing this before I noticed Ackey has locked it).

 

The following statement was included on the Tifosy site:

Quote

 


This is a campaign for the fans, by the fans, and the screen is therefore going to be a fan-owned asset

 

 

On the back of that representation to fans donating money, and given that the perimeter boards are clearly not fan-owned (whatever the set up of Corney's LED company) the club has no right whatsoever to the donated funds.  The refunds should be automatic and not optional.  If people want to give it back to the club then fine, good on them, but that should not be the default position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Stevie_J said:

In the hope that people can debate the actual subject matter and not the playground stuff, I'm going to reopen it (partly because I'd started typing this before I noticed Ackey has locked it).

 

The following statement was included on the Tifosy site:

 

On the back of that representation to fans donating money, and given that the perimeter boards are clearly not fan-owned (whatever the set up of Corney's LED company) the club has no right whatsoever to the donated funds.  The refunds should be automatic and not optional.  If people want to give it back to the club then fine, good on them, but that should not be the default position.

Why don't you communicate between yourselves ? Are you pulling rank ? Not much support for your fellow mod. 

Edited by simplythemostimportantkick
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, simplythemostimportantkick said:

Why don't you communicate between yourselves ? Are you pulling rank ? Not much support for your fellow mod. 

Can we stick to the debate at hand?

 

 

11 minutes ago, Stevie_J said:

On the back of that representation to fans donating money, and given that the perimeter boards are clearly not fan-owned (whatever the set up of Corney's LED company) the club has no right whatsoever to the donated funds.  The refunds should be automatic and not optional.  If people want to give it back to the club then fine, good on them, but that should not be the default position.

 

This a thousand times over is my gripe. The club have said one thing and done another too many times and this time it is with £22k+ of fans money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, kowenicki said:

 

Nobody but 5 or 6 of you on here care pal. They really really don't.  Do you get that?

 

I'm glad the thread reopened to allow me to respond to this.

 

If you think that the wrongful appropriation of funds is reasonable or acceptable then that's rather unfortunate.

 

If you don't think this cash grab by the club is wrong despite funds clearly being designated to The Trust at the time of the appeal then that too is also unfortunate.

 

As it stands I find the club's action reprehensible.  It undermines any future fundraising effort.  It undermines goodwill from the Trust and it puts Simon Brooke in the unenviable position of sitting in a boardroom with people he knows have either lied up front or used sleight of hand further down the line to undermine The Trust.

 

It's all very well people saying they quite like the pretty new advertising boards or not bothering to collect their refunds but even if they're in a majority that doesn't actually stand up to reasonable legal scrutiny.  Your attempt to marginalise dissent is close to saying "it's ok pinching money from a charity because only five or six people noticed".  A reminder that charitable trust law governs this "for profit" fundraising appeal so the comparison is relevant.

 

A sensible solution, which would, I think, satisfy just about everybody would be the football club genuinely ring fencing the remaining pot of cash after refunds have been paid.  The Trust to consult fans on a range of deliverable options for spending the cash (such as a fitting memorial for Mr Frizzell) and the club to deliver on that.

 

By the way, I took your tone as insulting.  It doesn't need to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The email from Tifosy is hardly definitive proof that the money raised was used to purchase the LED boards, unless of course Tifosy's information team have direct access to Latics financial affairs ?

That said, there has been an offer to refund the money so should that not be an end to the saga?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Blue_Guru said:

All speculation...  I'm all for raising my voice when something is out of order but I think the club have done everything they needed to here.

 

People who feel they have been misled or invested in something that isn't as originally stated can get their money back and give it to the trust if they like. 

 

Any money left can be presumed that the investor is happy that the club will use it in an otherwise non disclosed area of the club. If it goes to line Corneys pockets they are equally not bothered otherwise they would get a refund!

Exactly, I sent em £20, I don't need a 50 page dossier on how every penny of that will be accounted for

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, archiecat said:

The email from Tifosy is hardly definitive proof that the money raised was used to purchase the LED boards, unless of course Tifosy's information team have direct access to Latics financial affairs ?

That said, there has been an offer to refund the money so should that not be an end to the saga?

It should but I see two thoughts that are driving it regardless:

 

- the trust feel they have lost out on a bit of a windfall that they could have turned to promote a different cause (and promote the trust in turn) 

- the Corney outers sticking the knife in on something that (granted) was clumsy, but to my mind has now been satisfactorily handled. 

 

It all all comes down to the refund option, clear as day. 'Automatically refunding' sounds simple in theory but would be an operational nightmare and if one process can't work for all then it shouldn't happen at all. 

 

There may may have been an initial opportunist lens on what the club did with the 4 day refund window, but they acknowledged they were in the wrong and changed it. 

 

Case closed for me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, simplythemostimportantkick said:

Why don't you communicate between yourselves ? Are you pulling rank ? Not much support for your fellow mod. 

What the fuck are you talking about?  Pulling rank?  FFS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, youngen said:

Exactly, I sent em £20, I don't need a 50 page dossier on how every penny of that will be accounted for

I'm struggling to find the post where anyone has requested a one page dossier, can you post the relevant link. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, deyres42 said:

How practical would automatic refunds be? Do we know how many individual donations were made?

 

 

I would imagine Tifosy could assist with this and that it wouldn't be all that difficult.  It's hardly trying to account for money thrown into a bucket, unless I'm missing something.  Wasn't it all donated through a website?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Stevie_J said:

I would imagine Tifosy could assist with this and that it wouldn't be all that difficult.  It's hardly trying to account for money thrown into a bucket, unless I'm missing something.  Wasn't it all donated through a website?

The only problem I see is the rewards the club put forward for each level of contribution, it's obviously cost the club X amount of pounds to run the campaign, it still doesn't justify redirection of funds but maybe the club couldn't afford to be out of pocket.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, simplythemostimportantkick said:

Yeah. I'm not the one crying over a scoreboard lol

Nor am I.  I don't care whether we have a scoreboard and I didn't donate anything for that reason.  I'm just giving an opinion of what's right and wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, opinions4u said:

 

I'm glad the thread reopened to allow me to respond to this.

 

If you think that the wrongful appropriation of funds is reasonable or acceptable then that's rather unfortunate.

 

If you don't think this cash grab by the club is wrong despite funds clearly being designated to The Trust at the time of the appeal then that too is also unfortunate.

 

As it stands I find the club's action reprehensible.  It undermines any future fundraising effort.  It undermines goodwill from the Trust and it puts Simon Brooke in the unenviable position of sitting in a boardroom with people he knows have either lied up front or used sleight of hand further down the line to undermine The Trust.

 

It's all very well people saying they quite like the pretty new advertising boards or not bothering to collect their refunds but even if they're in a majority that doesn't actually stand up to reasonable legal scrutiny.  Your attempt to marginalise dissent is close to saying "it's ok pinching money from a charity because only five or six people noticed".  A reminder that charitable trust law governs this "for profit" fundraising appeal so the comparison is relevant.

 

A sensible solution, which would, I think, satisfy just about everybody would be the football club genuinely ring fencing the remaining pot of cash after refunds have been paid.  The Trust to consult fans on a range of deliverable options for spending the cash (such as a fitting memorial for Mr Frizzell) and the club to deliver on that.

 

By the way, I took your tone as insulting.  It doesn't need to be.

 

You took it as insulting because you wanted to. It wasn't. I will though now retire from this discussion and leave those that care to 'to and fro' over it. Perhaps if everyone that doesn't cares leaves the 6 of you to carry on it might be helpful?

Edited by kowenicki
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, boundaryblue80 said:

Due to the mods politely requesting it, I'll refrain (as best I can) from further name calling (for want of a phrase.)

 

Yet gobsmackingly unable to do so in your next couple of posts, it isn't that hard to just make a point. You've been here before, I remember somebody on here wanting to put some ventilation in your dental area.

 

To all - now you can post all the shitballs you want, I really couldn't give a jizz - but be prepared to have your opinions (baloney or otherwise) scrutinised and called out. Schoolyard ballooning is fucking laughable, to be fair some of you might be 14, the others - well, you're acting like it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, simplythemostimportantkick said:

Why don't you communicate between yourselves ? Are you pulling rank ? Not much support for your fellow mod. 

 

As I've said and others too, this isn't a full time job - however the way some are behaving on here is making us more 'visible' recently. We act on spec, generally.

 

No he's not.

 

We have supported each other a great deal over the years, this thread is insignificant in comparison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, opinions4u said:

 

I'm glad the thread reopened to allow me to respond to this.

 

If you think that the wrongful appropriation of funds is reasonable or acceptable then that's rather unfortunate.

 

If you don't think this cash grab by the club is wrong despite funds clearly being designated to The Trust at the time of the appeal then that too is also unfortunate.

 

As it stands I find the club's action reprehensible.  It undermines any future fundraising effort.  It undermines goodwill from the Trust and it puts Simon Brooke in the unenviable position of sitting in a boardroom with people he knows have either lied up front or used sleight of hand further down the line to undermine The Trust.

 

It's all very well people saying they quite like the pretty new advertising boards or not bothering to collect their refunds but even if they're in a majority that doesn't actually stand up to reasonable legal scrutiny.  Your attempt to marginalise dissent is close to saying "it's ok pinching money from a charity because only five or six people noticed".  A reminder that charitable trust law governs this "for profit" fundraising appeal so the comparison is relevant.

 

A sensible solution, which would, I think, satisfy just about everybody would be the football club genuinely ring fencing the remaining pot of cash after refunds have been paid.  The Trust to consult fans on a range of deliverable options for spending the cash (such as a fitting memorial for Mr Frizzell) and the club to deliver on that.

 

By the way, I took your tone as insulting.  It doesn't need to be.

Opinions, may I ask, or actually throw it open to all if anyone else knows

 

If the WUP is granted on the 8th May and the remaining scoreboard refunds go unclaimed, do we potentially "lose" the money or under charitable trust law is there some claw back?

 

thanks in advance

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, underdog said:

Opinions, may I ask, or actually throw it open to all if anyone else knows

 

If the WUP is granted on the 8th May and the remaining scoreboard refunds go unclaimed, do we potentially "lose" the money or under charitable trust law is there some claw back?

 

thanks in advance

Do you know something we don't know with regards to this WUP because you keep referring to it as if it's going through. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...